"Ron Paul's isolationist policy invites a second Holocaust"

[Jazz]

Ralph Ginorio, a history teacher from Limington, Maine, was a surrogate for Rick Santorum and spoke to the crowd in favor of him.

At one point, Ginorio talked about how Santorum is the one candidate who says what he means and means what he says.

"That's Ron Paul!" someone in the crowd yelled.

In response, Ginorio said, "Ron Paul's isolationist policy invites a second Holocaust."

That drew several boos from the crowd.

Before that exchange, Ginorio slammed Michelle Obama for her efforts to encourage healthier eating.

"I'm a pear-shaped fat man," he said. "I don't want Michelle Obama telling me what to eat in my own home."

http://concord-nh.patch.com/articles/ro ... ine-caucus

They always bring up the sacred holocaust whenever Ron Paul or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is mentioned it seems.

Here's photos of them with anti-Zionist Rabbi Weiss:

[Pappy Yokum]

'In response, Ginorio said, "Ron Paul's isolationist policy invites a second Holocaust."'

Hitler and the Holocaust is always invoked by those who worship a strong central government with an aggressive interventionist bent.
This is an expression of American exceptionalism: America is good and when it's government commits violence it is a form of heroism.
The U.S. government not committing or threatening violence therefore invites evil to control the world.

The assumptions one must have regarding human character to believe not threatening the world with violence is a danger, particularly to Jews, just boggles my mind.
Men are not angels, certainly, but men with power to control others - and those that desire to have and exercise that power - are even less so.

I say Jews, because Ginorio only recognizes one Holocaust. He said "second," not "another." The Ukrainians don't count. The Cultural Revolution in China doesn't count. The mass killing in Rwanda doesn't register. The genocide against the Plains Indians by the U.S. government and the myriad of other atrocities of history to date don't qualify as a "second Holocaust."

One must also assume Franklin Roosevelt was an isolationist since it was his policy that "invited" the "first Holocaust." That is not true. The U.S. government intervened in Europe and in Asia in the 1930's under Roosevelt. It was the interventionism of Woodrow Wilson during the First World War that set the stage for the second. The U.S. has intervened somewhere about every ten years since the country ratified the Constitution. The idea that a non-interventionist foreign policy by the U.S. would lead to anything is without foundation, because there is nothing to use as a basis for a conclusion, since it has never been tried. Switzerland has had a non-interventionist foreign policy for five hundred years. How many Holocausts has that invited?

Do people know nothing? Is there no desire to learn? Are fantasy worlds that fit our expectations a substitute for reality? Can anything other than disappointment come from a world that doesn't conform to a self-imposed distortion of it?

[Kingfisher]

Pappy Yokum,

An interesting and thoughtful post from you, as always. Yes, Munich is dragged up with monotonous regularity to justify intervention against the latest new "Hitler" from Nasser through to Ahmeddinajad.

The process can be applied in reverse though. You begin to wonder whether something of the same logic did not apply in order to justify intervention against the original Hitler. In my own case (I believed the orthodox story at the time) I became convinced that whatever had happened in the Holocaust was not prevented by the war and was probably caused by it. We (Britain) had given an assurance to Poland that we could not and did not honour, since we declared war but made no move to help the Poles. Neither did we declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland 2 weeks later. The German-Polish border dispute became a continental, and later a world, war. I could not envisage any consequence of not entering that war worse than the actual consequences: the war itself and the post-war situation. Poland itself suffered badly in the war and was handed over to Stalin afterwards. A German-Soviet war might still have occurred, but there was no good reason for Britain, France or the USA to get involved.

I have since concluded that there is good evidence that it was a war of choice on the part of Britain, whose purpose was regime change, and that the "Holocaust" (whatever version you think is correct) is invoked to justify it retrospectively.

[Carolyn Yeager]

I have since concluded that there is good evidence that it was a war of choice on the part of Britain, whose purpose was regime change, and that the "Holocaust" (whatever version you think is correct) is invoked to justify it retrospectively.

There is more than good evidence, there is full evidence, it is indisputable that it was a war of choice on the part of Britain and the United States. But the purpose was not regime change, but the destruction of German power and influence in Europe. As Churchill and ministers in the British Foreign Office said often enough, it was not about Hitler but about Germany. Germany must be brought down never to rise again. And it was. But along with it, Britain destroyed itself, and now the U.S. is doing the same. The Jews are the winners. Deny it if you will, out of political correctness, but it's the truth.